Quote:
Originally Posted by Wautier
It's unchartered territories, but common sense dictates that you would have to have trained it on content that you own or have permission to use.
So, should the authorities or anyone else need any proof, you would simply show the documentation of the original dataset, and if you really do own it, and if it wasn't some type of usenet or tumblr 100GB pack of amateur pictures shit, you should be just fine.
But, train it on potentially-CP type of selfies, you could get into trouble, maybe.. hypothetically -- eventually... But, remember the unchartered territories part... it's the wild wild west.
|
Of course, no CP but thats not what I am asking about.
Let's say you build a gallery of an AI model and put it up on a website. Now one day someone says show me the 2257. It cannot exist because she is not a real person. So, then what?
Another question: If you take pictures of a nude model for a website, then you get her photo ID etc and have a proper, legal 2257 policy in place. What if instead of a photograph, it is a painting? If I was to paint a nude, and post it, I would assume that some level of 2257 is still required, even though it is now an artist rendering. When AI "paints" an image, is it not considered to be an artist rendering?
I would assume that legally speaking, it would be best to keep all of the prompts and other data used when creating AI images. Would keeping that data be worth anything legally when it comes to 2257?